4 ms·

> All the complaints about ads are true, they suck, but how is content you enjoy supposed to be created and distributed without money? From where do you take i

> All the complaints about ads are true, they suck, but how is content you enjoy supposed to be created and distributed without money? From where do you take it that adsense revenue is the most major, most important revenue stream for YouTubers? Most content creators make their income on sponsorships and their own brands. Apart from that, it's not like content creators aren't starting their own streaming platforms. See Linus Tech Tips Floatplane for example. Regarding the distribution of content: Google has been more than happy to carry YouTube's operating cost from their quasi-monopoly on internet ads. In return, users gave them more detailed advertising profiles through the use of YouTube. I actually don't want to pay for premium. Google already gets my data - why should I pay for the privilege of handing it to them?

ok_dad 3y ago
So your answer is, “Google has always done this free tier so I’m entitled to it forever.” Were both know ZIRP ended, no need to try and ignore the economic climate just because you’re angry and Google sucks. I agree this sucks, but it’s not realistic to just ignore the issue until YouTube is shut down due to money loss. I would prefer a different solution, also, but like I said, I’m not going to say I know how.
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  > So your answer is, “Google has always done this free tier so I’m entitled to it forever.” Please don't try to put words in my mouth. My answer was perfectly clear and easy to understand. You implied that adsense revenue is a major income source for content creators - this simply isn't true. As for why or why I don't want to pay them for Premium: Premium does not convince me as an offering. Price is too high and there is a distinct lack of features. I will use YouTube until they stop servicing people with AdBlock, then I am going to stop using the platform. (blocking ads isn't illegal in my jurisdiction). > I agree this sucks, but it’s not realistic to just ignore the issue until YouTube is shut down I really _really_ don't care about the future of some Silicon Valley conglomerate. But I see nothing negative about YouTube shutting down or taking a blow - it would open up the market for new competitors such as floatplane. YouTube's MOAT is not with it's service offerings, but with it's content creators. These people will look for alternative providers if they experience a major drop in their audience due to this new monetization.
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    I didn’t say anything about creators vs whatever. You’re putting words in my mouth. I said this all, end to end, costs money, and today ads pay for those who cannot afford premium. Off you don’t want to pay, and don’t want to watch ads, your choice is to not watch YouTube. It’s simple. I wish there was a third option! I think it would suck for YouTube to shut down, it has a lot of good content and the alternatives are much worse (today at least).
  - belltaco 3y ago
    > My answer was perfectly clear and easy to understand. You implied that adsense revenue is a major income source for content creators - this simply isn't true. Source? If it's "simply" not true you should probably have some solid sources to back it up. From the article YT's ad revenue is $7.7B per quarter. They take about 32% and pay out 68%. So they probably pay content creators about $15 billion per quarter, which is $60B annualized. How is that not a major source of revenue for content creators? Discovery or recommendations which is what drives traffic to content creators is non-existent on Floatplane, even LTT is still all over YT. In fact they use YouTube to push Floatplane subs for insider content. If they weren't on YT how would they acquire new Floatplane customers? By paying for ads online? To people who may not even know what LTT or their content is? You have to subscribe to each individual content creator on Floatpane, you'd be paying far more than the $14/month that YT costs. Just LTT is $5/month to include some exclusives, and $10/month for 4K. YT includes 4K by default with both free and paid. So people who are resisting paying $14/month for all of YT's billions of videos are going to pay $5 to $10 per month for every single channel they watch in a month? No way.
- Beldin 3y ago
  > your answer is, “Google has always done this free tier so I’m entitled to it forever.” Apart from OP pointing out that that's not what was said: yes. We have been trained over more than two decades to expect stuff on the internet to be free, bar perhaps the occasional sponsored segment. From punching monkeys to win money, to news, to having music streamed to you, to having videos - including music videos - streamed to you. All for free. The whole bruhaha about privacy? Pffft. You can get what you want nownownowNOW! Without paying! And you know what? That training was successful. Music television no longer exists. Newspapers struggle to survive - as does traditional TV broadcasting. Waiting a week between episodes? What is this, the stone age? So congratulations to Google and other internet juggernauts. We've been trained well. We expect to be able to binge what we want, without having to pay. And without too much ad annoyance. We will no longer pay. Our threshold for crap (ads included) is also miniscule, because that's the other factor luring us away from competition. So yes: I totally expect Google to serve me what I want, when I want it, without having to pay. Because that's what Google has been training us to expect.
e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
> Regarding the distribution of content: Google has been more than happy to carry YouTube's operating cost from their quasi-monopoly on internet ads. In return, users gave them more detailed advertising profiles through the use of YouTube. Ad data is not worth that much money, especially if you adblock all their ads. Every time you watch a Youtube video, Google loses money, why on earth should they serve their videos to you for free? I use adblock, but I'm not under the delusion that I'm not freeriding off everybody who's not blocking ads.
- Beldin 3y ago
  > Ad data is not worth that much money, Google and facebook, some of the highest-valued companies ever to exist, make most of their money from ads. The ridiculous SV software engineering salaries aren't powered by goodwill, but by a need to compete with the salaries offered by these ad companies. Unity - a company making a game engine - is working on a licensing model where using their ad network gets you favorable rates. That is: the revenue model for a game engine is to include ad revenue from games that use their engine. If ad data was truly not worth so much, the internet would be better. So. Much. Better.

ok_dad 3y ago

So your answer is, “Google has always done this free tier so I’m entitled to it forever.” Were both know ZIRP ended, no need to try and ignore the economic climate just because you’re angry and Google sucks. I agree this sucks, but it’s not realistic to just ignore the issue until YouTube is shut down due to money loss. I would prefer a different solution, also, but like I said, I’m not going to say I know how.

awesomeMilou 3y ago
> So your answer is, “Google has always done this free tier so I’m entitled to it forever.” Please don't try to put words in my mouth. My answer was perfectly clear and easy to understand. You implied that adsense revenue is a major income source for content creators - this simply isn't true. As for why or why I don't want to pay them for Premium: Premium does not convince me as an offering. Price is too high and there is a distinct lack of features. I will use YouTube until they stop servicing people with AdBlock, then I am going to stop using the platform. (blocking ads isn't illegal in my jurisdiction). > I agree this sucks, but it’s not realistic to just ignore the issue until YouTube is shut down I really _really_ don't care about the future of some Silicon Valley conglomerate. But I see nothing negative about YouTube shutting down or taking a blow - it would open up the market for new competitors such as floatplane. YouTube's MOAT is not with it's service offerings, but with it's content creators. These people will look for alternative providers if they experience a major drop in their audience due to this new monetization.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  I didn’t say anything about creators vs whatever. You’re putting words in my mouth. I said this all, end to end, costs money, and today ads pay for those who cannot afford premium. Off you don’t want to pay, and don’t want to watch ads, your choice is to not watch YouTube. It’s simple. I wish there was a third option! I think it would suck for YouTube to shut down, it has a lot of good content and the alternatives are much worse (today at least).
- belltaco 3y ago
  > My answer was perfectly clear and easy to understand. You implied that adsense revenue is a major income source for content creators - this simply isn't true. Source? If it's "simply" not true you should probably have some solid sources to back it up. From the article YT's ad revenue is $7.7B per quarter. They take about 32% and pay out 68%. So they probably pay content creators about $15 billion per quarter, which is $60B annualized. How is that not a major source of revenue for content creators? Discovery or recommendations which is what drives traffic to content creators is non-existent on Floatplane, even LTT is still all over YT. In fact they use YouTube to push Floatplane subs for insider content. If they weren't on YT how would they acquire new Floatplane customers? By paying for ads online? To people who may not even know what LTT or their content is? You have to subscribe to each individual content creator on Floatpane, you'd be paying far more than the $14/month that YT costs. Just LTT is $5/month to include some exclusives, and $10/month for 4K. YT includes 4K by default with both free and paid. So people who are resisting paying $14/month for all of YT's billions of videos are going to pay $5 to $10 per month for every single channel they watch in a month? No way.
Beldin 3y ago
> your answer is, “Google has always done this free tier so I’m entitled to it forever.” Apart from OP pointing out that that's not what was said: yes. We have been trained over more than two decades to expect stuff on the internet to be free, bar perhaps the occasional sponsored segment. From punching monkeys to win money, to news, to having music streamed to you, to having videos - including music videos - streamed to you. All for free. The whole bruhaha about privacy? Pffft. You can get what you want nownownowNOW! Without paying! And you know what? That training was successful. Music television no longer exists. Newspapers struggle to survive - as does traditional TV broadcasting. Waiting a week between episodes? What is this, the stone age? So congratulations to Google and other internet juggernauts. We've been trained well. We expect to be able to binge what we want, without having to pay. And without too much ad annoyance. We will no longer pay. Our threshold for crap (ads included) is also miniscule, because that's the other factor luring us away from competition. So yes: I totally expect Google to serve me what I want, when I want it, without having to pay. Because that's what Google has been training us to expect.

e63f67dd-065b 3y ago

> Regarding the distribution of content: Google has been more than happy to carry YouTube's operating cost from their quasi-monopoly on internet ads. In return, users gave them more detailed advertising profiles through the use of YouTube. Ad data is not worth that much money, especially if you adblock all their ads. Every time you watch a Youtube video, Google loses money, why on earth should they serve their videos to you for free? I use adblock, but I'm not under the delusion that I'm not freeriding off everybody who's not blocking ads.

Beldin 3y ago
> Ad data is not worth that much money, Google and facebook, some of the highest-valued companies ever to exist, make most of their money from ads. The ridiculous SV software engineering salaries aren't powered by goodwill, but by a need to compete with the salaries offered by these ad companies. Unity - a company making a game engine - is working on a licensing model where using their ad network gets you favorable rates. That is: the revenue model for a game engine is to include ad revenue from games that use their engine. If ad data was truly not worth so much, the internet would be better. So. Much. Better.